Courts & Law

Second Religious Bigotry bill dies in AZ legislature

by

AzEqualEarlier this year I told you about Rep. Steve Montenegro’s (R-Litchfield Park) bill, HB 2481, which sought  to make it illegal for government to “require a minister to solemnize a marriage inconsistent with a minister’s sincerely held religious beliefs.” A solution in search of a non-existent problem.

Apparently the Arizona legislature finally realized it was a solution in search of a non-existent problem and killed this bill. Another ‘religious freedom’ bill dies in Legislature:

A bill touted as an attempt to protect religious freedom among clergy and judges has died, following the path of Senate Bill 1062, which was widely denounced as discriminatory against gays and lesbians.

House Bill 2481 would have prevented government from requiring ordained clergy and judges to “solemnize a marriage that is inconsistent with the minister’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Read more

Hobby Lobby, thy name is hypocrisy

by

JesusFacepalm2Did you know Hobby Lobby’s “deeply held” religious beliefs include investing $73 million in pharmaceutical companies that develop and produce various forms of contraception that the company does not want to cover under its employee health care plan? Does the U.S. Supreme court know about this hypocrisy (and would it even care?)

Mother Jones reports, Hobby Lobby’s Hypocrisy: The Company’s Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers:

When Obamacare compelled businesses to include emergency contraception in employee health care plans, Hobby Lobby, a national chain of craft stores, fought the law all the way to the Supreme Court. The Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, the company’s owners argued, forced them to violate their religious beliefs. But while it was suing the government, Hobby Lobby spent millions of dollars on an employee retirement plan that invested in the manufacturers of the same contraceptive products the firm’s owners cite in their lawsuit.

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

Read more

Mississippi passes the model Religious Bigotry bill

by

I an curious, will the business community organize opposition the way it did in Arizona to force the governor’s hand to veto this bill? Where is the national outcry that we saw with Arizona’s bill?

Mississippi, a bottom-dweller like Arizona, always competing for “worst” status, has passed its model bill version of SB 1062 earlier passed by the Arizona legislature and vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. Mississippi Legislature Passes ‘Religious Liberty’ Bill That Legalizes Discrimination Against Gay People:

The Mississippi legislature has passed legislation that would allow people to use their religion to justify discrimination. It seemed last month that the “religious liberty” bill had sufficiently stalled after the House voted to send it a study committee instead of passing it, with many members noting how it could be used to promote discrimination. However, both the House and Senate have approved a conference report on the bill, advancing it to Gov. Phil Bryant (R) with problematic language.

“Religious liberty” bills like the one vetoed in Arizona differ from other states’ “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” (RFRAs) because they extend religious protections to businesses. Mississippi’s bill has this same problem, because state law already defines a “person” to include “all public and private corporations.” Thus, if Bryant were to sign Mississippi’s bill into law, it would grant all businesses in the state a license to discriminate based on religious grounds.

Read more

Justice John Roberts’ McCutcheon money laundering scheme

by

Think Progress has a good analysis of the practical effects of the U.S. Supreme court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC today. How The Supreme Court Just Legalized Money Laundering By Rich Campaign Donors:

Screenshot from 2014-04-02 14:06:21Prior to Wednesday’s opinion, federal law placed two complementary limits on campaign donors. During the current election cycle, donors may give no more than $5,200 per election cycle ($2,600 for the primary and another $2,600 for the general) to a given federal candidate, and there are also higher limits on how much they can give to party committees and political action committees. These limits remain intact.

What McCutcheon invalidates are aggregate limits on the total amount of money that donors may give to all federal candidates ($48,600) and to all political committees ($74,600). Thus, before Wednesday, donors could spend as much as $123,200 seeking to influence the 2014 election cycle — now they can spend as much as they want. Make no mistake, this decision benefits no one except for a handful of very wealthy donors (and the candidates they give to).

Read more

AZ Supreme Court explains its decision on campaign contribution limits

by

gavelHey, maybe we can get the Arizona Supreme Court to reveal how it voted on its order upholding the appeal from the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts sub silentio without an opinion. I am certain the vote wasn’t unanimous.

The Arizona Supreme Court today, some five months after it upheld the new campaign finance limits law enacted by the Tea-Publican controlled Arizona legislature — fortuitously timed to coincide with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC — finally explained its reasoning in a rare 3-2 split decision. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, State Supreme Court explains ruling on contribution limits:

In a rare split decision, the Arizona Supreme Court explained today that a law setting new contribution limits is valid because voters in 1998 would have set specific amounts into statute if they wanted them fixed.

* * *

Justices Ann Scott Timmer, Robert Brutinel, and John Pelander comprised the majority and gave a host of reasons to show how they interpreted the intent of the voters who passed the Citizens Clean Elections Act.

Read more